LIVE | Apartheid flag judgment

"This in my view is precisely why the order does not contain a directive prohibiting the display of the flag. There is no order ad factum praesdandum," he said.

This ^^

The judge that made the ruling to begin with made a retarded ruling... Roets must now sue for costs and use that costs to appeal the initial ruling.
 
Solid ruling, judge didnt say it was contempt of court. He made it clear maybe it could be at a later stage.
 
ponder said:
Can we get a twitter campaign started to identify this person and get them prosecuted, fair is fair...

View attachment 709821
Click to expand...
Extremely Artistic changing the blue to purple. All good.

I wonder if people will notice if I change the colours slightly. Perhaps i should do an academic study on people's levels of colour blindness? Perhaps see if they recognize the old-old flag?
 
surface said:
So, how many of you bought tiny flags now? To support in principle of course.
Click to expand...

Why would one need to buy a flag to support a principle seeing as it's not about the flag but the underlying issue?
 
Sollie said:
Every time the street vendors want to sell them, the taxis operators chase them. I may still get lucky ...
Click to expand...
You could perhaps tell them that you are landless, house-lesss, money-less, jobless because of BEE and see if they take pity on you. On the other hand, with the current genocide is going on, I am not too sure..
 
Not only that. What about the people that have been victimised by such rulings? Will they also get their money back now?
 
Proper link to an actual online article. Its a narrow verdict, applying to a specific case, not all hate speech:
www.news24.com

'Gay is not ok' columnist off the hook as SCA orders rewrite of 'vague' hate speech definition

The Supreme Court of Appeal has found the current definition of hate speech to be unconstitutional after it ruled that former diplomat Jon Qwelane's opinion on same-sex marriage was hurtful, but did not amount to hate speech under the current definition.
www.news24.com www.news24.com
 
Gordon_R said:
Proper link to an actual online article. Its a narrow verdict, applying to a specific case, not all hate speech:
www.news24.com

'Gay is not ok' columnist off the hook as SCA orders rewrite of 'vague' hate speech definition

The Supreme Court of Appeal has found the current definition of hate speech to be unconstitutional after it ruled that former diplomat Jon Qwelane's opinion on same-sex marriage was hurtful, but did not amount to hate speech under the current definition.
www.news24.com www.news24.com
Click to expand...

You are wrong, again.

The court did not only rule in terms of using the word Gay. The court ruled against a vague definition of Hate Speech and ordered government to re-write it. This currently affects each and every prosecution under this act. Every current case is being affected.

It is clear that the court is correct in holding that there must also be an element of enticement before a person can be convicted of hate speech and that merely calling someone something alone is not hate speech.

That being said, some sanity prevails here from the courts, but I am sure the ANC will take this decision to the other corrupt court known as the Constitutional Court to prevent this order from being enacted upon.
 
Swa said:
Not only that. What about the people that have been victimised by such rulings? Will they also get their money back now?
Click to expand...

If this matter is lost in the Concourt and they uphold the Appeals Courts' judgment, then everyone convicted, like Penny Sparrow, may have their convictions overturned. Current cases will simply be struck off the role. The government will need to refund all fines paid too, because there were no incitement in any of those cases where the courts oppressed white people.

But then again, I think the Concourt may struck down all the judges in the appeals court and keep oppressing white people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X